This was originally posted on my personal blog, The Dream Lounge. It is the spring board from which this blog, and the book, Declarationism, come from. I post it here, exactly as it was originally written, as a reference and starting point for the advancement that is to come for my political philosophy, declarationism.

As the saying goes, it’s a lot easier to get where you’re going, when you know where you came from — and incidentally, such is the spirit of declarationism.

~~~

As a forewarning for my more consistent readers, this will be the most extreme post I have ever written. In it I will provide a full, radical, basic, consistent alternative to what has become conventional governance in our States United – one that is perhaps by fate, original, in the most absolute sense conceivable.

With that said, I will remind all of the disclaimer posted on this site, which clearly states that all opinions expressed are entirely my own, and do not necessarily reflect those of any organization I take part in, including those in which I play a leadership role.

And with that said, I will remind all that I hold truth against all things and against all men. There are no exceptions, and so far as I am aware, there are no legitimate arguments to the contrary possible for what I am about to share.

##############

James Steele II is a frequent commenter on this blog. His understanding of his right to life and liberty is absolute. It is matched by few alive in this world today.

James Steele II is also a citizen of the United Kingdom. He does not live in the United States of America. As a result, there have been numerous times on this blog when I wished to express to him why I am so happy to have been born in our federal union, and why I will never abandon it.

But I have not, because I knew to do so properly would take a degree of effort not fit for a comment. I knew that to fully express my joy and convictions, a post would be required – this post.

My joy and conviction to never abandon our united States lies in a self generated concept I had in the Summer of 2010. My concept has been absolute from the get go.

Some time later, I found an approximate description and proper term for my idea – decalarationism.

The term as Wikipedia describes it, is not the exact same as my idea, but is close enough for me to use and imprint a new meaning upon – the right meaning.

The description Wikipedia provides states that…

“Declarationism is a legal philosophy that incorporates the United States Declaration of Independence into the body of case law on level with the United States Constitution. It holds that the Declaration is a natural law document and so that natural law has a place within American jurisprudence.”

And…

“Proponents claim that the concept is derived from the philosophical structure contained in the Declaration of Independence and assertion that it was the Declaration that created the nation, the Constitution creating only the federal government. According to this view, the authority to create the Constitution derives from the prior act of nation-creation accomplished by the Declaration. The Declaration declares that the people have a right to alter or abolish any government once it becomes destructive of their natural rights. The turn away from the Articles of Confederation with the ratification of the Constitution was an action of this sort and so the Constitution’s authority exists within the legal framework established by the Declaration. The Constitution cannot, then, be interpreted as though it were the foundation of constitutional law, in the absence of principles derived from the Declaration”

My disagreements with the Wikipedia description are in bold. My remedy for this disagreement is not to disprove, but to further define – to pinpoint the ultimate core, the pinnacle rule of law in these American States, that need not be added, but reaffirmed.

My refinements are as follows in regards to the Wikipedia description of declarationism, leaving my own definition independent to function as an expression of my original idea.

1. The United States Declaration of Independence is not “on level” with the United States Constitution – the second plan of government for our union of States – it is, and has been since the day of it’s creation, irrevocably and forever superior.

Governments receive their power in one of two ways. By just consent of the governed, or by the initiation of force. There are no possible alternatives.

My discrepancy is that the United States Constitution is not a government – it is a written document that comprehensively details a plan of and for a specific government.

But a plan without a purpose is no plan at all. It cannot exist any sooner than a house without a foundation upon which to rest.

This is a physical impossibility.

As such, I state that the Declaration of Independence is the foundation upon which the United States Constitution currently rests and derives it’s power from as the plan of government which it is – not only because it created a nation, but because of a single section of a single sentence contained within the document.

The collection of words that represents the greatest achievement in the history of mankind – the triumph and freedom of man from men.

“That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men,”

2. This sentence highlights my second and final disagreement with the Wikipedia definition of “declarationism”.

The current constitution of our American States is not only not the foundation of law in the absence of principles (plural) found in the Declaration of Independence – any part of it is without authority if it does not filter through that single principle forever inscribed in the Declaration of Independence.

That the purpose of government – the only purpose of government given in the Declaration of Independence – is to secure the rights of man.

That’s it.

#####################

What does this mean?

It means that any part of the United States Constitution – our current set of chains for the general government between the States, a written delegation of limited powers, with all powers not delegated remaining with the States and the people – not in perfect alignment with the singular, written in stone purpose of government, is …

invalid

illegitimate

illegal

void

null

and of no effect.

More literally, if a power was not delegated to the federal government through the current plan of government, the power does not exist for the federal government to exercise.

If a power given to (or taken by) the federal government does not filter through the purpose of government, it was never up for delegation in the first place – and the general government has never had such power.

…

The has never had part is important, because I am taking this multiple steps further to crystallize the true meaning of declarationism.

I will do this with two guideposts. Resolved and proposed.

Resolved stands for a concept that has always been and still is in full effect. Nothing but re-affirming what already exists will do when this term is used. Anything else will result in a perpetuation and amplification of the problems we face in our States United – and even if a temporary relief is found, relapse of the original problem will follow. Band-aids do not heal what requires surgery (alter), and in some cases, amputation (abolish).

Proposed stands for actions and ideas that must come into full effect. New actions and new ideas must take hold for what I propose to manifest into reality. Little or no history exists for what must be done. The path is new – just like the founding of our union of States once was.

…

RESOLVED

No action or institution of the government between the States – the federal government of the United States of America – can violate or ever be in contradiction with, in any way, shape, or form with the stated, singular purpose upon which the plan it strictly operates by, derives it’s power from.

“That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men,”

The greatest lie in American history is that the federal government can legally operate outside the bounds of this singular principle.

RESOLVED

Man has a right to his life – his own life.

Man has a right to his liberty, stemming from his right to life.

Man has a right to pursue his own happiness in accordance with his own values and for his own reasons.

Man has a right to exist for his own sake, and his own sake alone.

No man can posses a right that supersedes the right of another.

Man has a right to defend his rights with any and all force necessary – necessary the moment no options are left to him.

RESOLVED

The rights of man are not a matter of practically – they are a matter of reality. Their existence cannot be argued against any sooner than the inherent ability to argue can be argued against.

The fact that a man exists and can argue an idea pre-supposes his right to exist – stemming from his right to reason (his right to think freely), stemming from his right to liberty, stemming from his right to life.

RESOLVED

Every act and institution of government created and witnessed since the signing of the Declaration of Independence, not in perfect alignment with the only purpose of government, has been illegal, is illegal, is void, null, and of no effect or legitimate authority.

Every agency created that violates the rights of man, every law* passed that violates the rights of man, every court case ruled that violates the rights of man – every single action taken that violates the rights of man since the founding of this country – is illegal, void, and of no legitimate force.

*Illegal laws are not laws and have never been laws — they exist no more than unicorns do.

RESOLVED

The judicial and executive branches of the general government between the States were not delegated the power to write law.

Every federal law not written and passed by the legislative branch of the federal government is null, void, and of no legitimate force or effect.

Every executive order that acts as a law, and every “regulation” ever passed by any body of the federal government other than the legislative, is illegal, void, null, and of no effect.

RESOLVED

The delegation of man’s rights to a general government between the American States is impossible – it violates the written in stone purpose of government to secure the rights of man – the legal foundation upon which the plan of government by which such government strictly operates by law.

The United States Constitution contains no such delegations of power. If any amendments were to ever be made to such plan of government, they would be void, null, and of no effect.

In alignment with this truth, no amendment made to the constitution of our States United can ever assume such delegation.

RESOLVED

The 16th amendment to the United States Constitution for the extraction of wealth by gunpoint is illegal, null, void, and of no effect. To make this amendment legal is impossible. Personal income tax requires state ownership of the individual.

No such thing exists – nor can it ever. The general government of these States United was instituted to secure the rights of man.

Pointing a gun at him and attempting to forcibly extract the fruits of his labor – the sum of his life and liberty – is slavery of the spirit.

It is a blatant denial of man’s right to life and liberty.

It is modern day slavery, not equally, but more abhorrent than the physical slavery that ended in the 19th century by it’s sinister nature.

Man’s right to life and liberty is not a matter of practicality. There is no percentage of personal income to be taken at gun point that is acceptable to any man with a shred of dignity and integrity left in the world.

RESOLVED

The state does not own the individual. No man can be forced into physical slavery without violating the rights of another.

No man can be legally forced into military servitude – military slavery. No draft, under any name, or any pretense, can ever be legal in these States united.

The foreign or domestic nature of any such potential draft is irrelevant. Man’s right to life and liberty is not a matter of practicality. Man can choose to defend his union of American States or watch it perish – his choice is not to be decided at the gun point of his brothers.

As inscribed, the purpose of government is to secure of the rights of man – the initiating oppressor is of no relevance.

The ability to form a military for the purpose of national defense is an expression of the defined purpose of government as witnessed in the Declaration of Independence – this subsequent purpose does not supersede the singular written and supreme purpose of government.

RESOLVED

No man can be forced to purchase a product or service, at the barrel of a gun, or otherwise.

RESOLVED

The federal government cannot restrict what a man will and will not put into his body, so long as he does not violate the rights of others.

The 21st amendment to the United States Constitution is unnecessary. The 18th was illegal to begin with.

Marijuana is legal on the federal level in our United States, and always has been.

RESOLVED

No law enforcement officer in our United States – who has sworn a sacred oath to the United States Constitution – can be legally forced to execute unconstitutional, illegal acts.

He is not relieved of his oath when an illegal order comes from his superior.

Of special concern, any acts that relate to

Military slavery

Personal income tax

Forced purchase of a product

The ingestion of any plant, food, or substance

should be ignored and resisted if necessary.

Any law enforcement officer that does submit to such orders is in violation of the United States Constitution, and the purpose of government as expressly defined in the Declaration of Independence — the legal foundation which the US Constitution stands upon.

Any law enforcement officer that unjustly violates the rights of man should be arrested on site by his fellow law enforcement officers and face the full punishment allowed by law in his State.

Men of integrity stand on their own judgement.

RESOLVED

All federal institutions and federal law enforcement agents not expressly permitted in the United States Constitution, nor present historically since the founding of our union, are unconstitutional, and therefore, illegal. Any such law enforcement agent is void of legitimate authority and should obey his oath by resigning immediately.

All employees of such illegal institutions should resign immediately. To not do so is to remain in violation of oath to the United States Constitution.

To keep their oath to the United States Constitution, all law enforcement agents of the States must protect the citizens of their States by any and all force necessary from such illegal agents of the federal government, not expressly permitted, nor present historically since the founding.

RESOLVED

The federal government was never granted the power to assassinate it’s citizens, nor can it ever be. Any member of government who calls for the assassination of an American citizen and attempts his execution should face trial for direct and blatant disobedience to both the United States Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.

PROPOSED

All members of the United States military currently engaged in acts of war against sovereign states thrown down their weapons and return to the United States immediately to face trial.

The chief executive officer of our United States does not have the delegated power to carry out war against sovereign nations without a declaration of war from the congress.

No member of the military who participated in such acts was ever relieved of his or her oath to the United States Constitution – and they have broken written law in following such orders.

PROPOSED

Every living president who committed acts of war against sovereign states without a declaration of war from the congress face trial for blatantly violating his sacred oath to the United States Constitution.

PROPOSED

Every living member – former and present – of the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the federal government who did not, on record, cry outrage at all unconstitutional, undeclared, illegal acts of war against sovereign states, face trial and punishment for disobeying their oath to the United States Constitution, and therefore, acting illegally as members of the federal government.

PROPOSED

80% of the federal government be abolished – starting with the central bank. The remaining 20% be altered to reflect it’s original form, and adhere to it’s ultimate purpose and supreme law.

“That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men,”

PROPOSED

Every State that wishes to remain a part of this federal union place a permanent written sign above every door to every building of government in their State.

“Governments are instituted among men to secure the rights of man. A=A. No right can be sacrificed to the benefit of another – since all rights stem from man’s individual right to his own life. Those who would violate the rights of man do so at their own peril.”

RESOLVED

The United States Constitution is a plan of government for the general government between the States – the federal government.

Such plan has been selectively enforced against member States of the federal union by the initiation of force and only the initiation of force.

Each State has it’s own constitution, it’s own plan of government.

The initiation of force is the rejection of the written purpose of the government as inscribed in the Declaration of Independence.

The independent States that form the United States, and created the federal government – which is currently broken in every way – have never been legally required to follow the United States Constitution as a plan of government.

To say that have been and are legally required to is to state that the initiation of force – the core denial of the man’s right to life – is legally valid.

It’s not.

RESOLVED

Independent States not only have a “right” by contract to secede from the union they created – since the power of independent secession was never delegated by the States, only suppressed by the initiation of force – they are also obligated to adhere to the written purpose of government declared at the founding of our union.

Any State found to be in violation of such singular purpose, should be rejected from the union immediately, as such “right” to partake in subject Union is dissolved when a State violates the rights of man.

The same way a man dissolves his right to life in the canceling of another man’s right to life.

An example of such violation is compulsory schooling and the funding of public schooling by the barrel of a gun.

################

IN SUMMARY

As evidenced by the dissolution of the Articles of Confederation and it’s replacement with the United States Constitution, the Declaration of Independence is the supreme written document of our States United.

It’s singular stated purpose of government for which all actions of government on every level in our United States must adhere to, is to secure the rights of man (singular).

A=A

No security can be found in the sacrifice of one right for another. To argue so is an outright denial of the most basic law of logic.

Man has an absolute right to his life. The right was expressed in the greatest triumph in human history – the triumph of man over and from men – written in the form of the Declaration of Independence.

This is a triumph written in stone – that is indeed our supreme law which all government must adhere to.

It is a triumph that once lost, is never replaced.

This is why I will never abandon the United States of America — a union of States where it is still possible to defend one’s life and liberty by any and all force necessary.

This is why I have no intention of leaving this earth until the government of these American States returns to it’s proper, singular, and supreme purpose.

To secure the rights of man.

In the words of JFK

Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.John F. Kennedy, In a speech at the White House, 196235th president of US 1961-1963 (1917 – 1963)

Connect with Anthony

4 Responses to Liberty Unlocked: Declarationism

I’ve just discovered this from TDL. I do hope you will be writing more about this philosophy soon. I know T21C keeps you quite busy but I am interested in how this idea will develop, especially in light of the many issues which seem to be accelerating our journey to the edge of the cliff over which we are inevitably going.

I’ve come to realize that the source of all pain, and misery, and suffering of man is control – the control others attempt to impose on man, to reign in thought and action and hope and dreams, and so many people are willing to be bossed around for the sake of ease and leisure, all the while ignoring the soft control which hems them in. People do not actively seek slavery; they seek security, but slavery is what they get in exchange, and then they mourn the loss of nobility and courage until the mourning turns to numbness and then indifference, and eventually a championing of their chains as necessary to daily function. I wonder what the “wake up!” moment will be and when it will come. I hope to see it in my lifetime.

Anthony,
I deeply appreciate your dedication to personal liberty, but any philosophy rooted in the creation/maintenance of an ideal political state, is, in the end, opposed to personal liberty.

The following statement reveals the internal contradiction that resides in any theory that proposes a STATE for the protection/promotion of FREEDOM:

RESOLVED

The state does not own the individual. No man can be forced into physical slavery without violating the rights of another.

The signers of the Declaration of Independence violated this principle prima facia, by presuming to speak for the entire population of the American Colonies. Did every man and woman living in the colonies with the faculties to do so, express their consent with the Continental Congress’ action? If not, then you have unilateral, violent action – the only social action unique to the state.

As long as a state exists, liberty will be curtailed. It’s is a fools errand to hope that a state will be restrained in the conduct of the only business it engages in – violent repression of liberty – because of a document, no matter how well written or intended

I would stress first and foremost that this post is very, very old and does not encompass all of my current thoughts. I believe there is a disclaimer at the very beginning of the post. With that said this website will “officially” launch soon, and will then begin to correspond to my most up to date thoughts, ideas, and convictions.

Furthermore, I reject your basic premise that a proper state cannot exist in reality. I am convinced a legal philosophy can be derived from reality, and once derived, used to permanently chain government, to reality, freeing mankind from unjust, violent governments.

This does not create a “utopia”, but it does leave man categorically better off than his current state of affairs.

All of this is not dependent on a document. It is dependent on man’s ability to derive from reality a proper legal philosophy, much the same man’s life depends on his mind to grow/collect/hunt food. No such philosophy currently exists, which in my opinion, is what leaves men so desperate and hopeless as to believe no good government can exist (and not on the brink of turning to tyranny). This is not a personal attack, I sincerely believe many men turn to various forms of anarchy because of the current lack of legal philosophy.

(What I’m saying is, the turn to anarchy is logical at this point given the complete absence of a proper legal philosophy).

Who, what groups do you set up as judge, jury, and executioner for our {duly or non-duly) constituted government? What do you say to the many– by all evidence a majority– who do not agree with your Judgement, that our our government has gone far beyond its proper grounding in natural rights? What about the natural right of (d)emocratic self-government, which according to John Locke, (first modern formulator of the Declaration’s natural rights ideas), is also a cornerstone natural right. From your arguments here, it appears you relegate those rights to constitute a (d)emocratic
community to a lesser status. Is not the idea of democracy with complete consensus, even on fundamental issues– purely “utopian”, to use a characterization you reject?

The same question applies to your assertions about the Declaration of Independence and its “fundamental ” status. Some may agree, many more probably disagree–what do you intend to do about that majority, if they are not persuadable?

When an individual such as yourself reaches a determination that certain acts or provisions our our present government are in violation of basic natural rights, and therefore illegitimate and illegal– what is your next step? From your emphasis on the natural right of revolution (which I also accept), I assume an impatience with “the usual methods”– open debate and eventual voting through duly formulated rules and customs. Do you have any obligation on to persuade a majority of your fellow-citizens of the rightness of your views, before taking things to the Next Step– possibly including “Second Amendment Solutions”? How long and intense an effort to persuade? And if your efforts to inform, fail to persuade— are you claiming the right to resist by force, even against the now informed majority? And is it possible that you believe that you are entitled to a pass on (statutorally) illegal acts of resistance, because they are done in the name of natural rights? No state of any sort, anywhere, can function if it offers such an exemption– and if it did, what or who will “secure” those natural rights you proclaim?

Admittedly, part of the confusion about natural liberty and consensual government starts with the early Social Contract theorists, including Locke, and their followers like John Adams, who could too glibly claim that all true social contracts are entirely consensual and voluntary. We are discussing the documents undergirding the formation of a State– and when that form cannot function (allowing for dissent) if it permits dissenters and “Free Riders” to opt out- whether for reasons of conscience or self-interest. Neither thieves nor conscientious rejecters of property rights, for example, can be excused from generally, duly made property laws. Such a state would be, in the words of Noah Webster, “a rope of sand.” Hence the drive of libertarian purists toward philosophical anarchism– a position you clearly reject.

Though your website has encouraging references to “the non-initiation of harm,”
and though your presentation of ideas is more reasoned and careful than most of what comes out of the Tea Party movement—in the end it is, like theirs, another pitch for forceful insurrection. Founding natural rights theorist John Locke wrote of the rights to “life, liberty, and property. ” And that to secure those, we make governments. How secure will anyone’s rights to Life, Liberty, and Property be, if self-appointed guardians of “natural rights” make revolutions every few decades, to use our friend Jefferson’s– Locke’s “American Translator” absurd and irresponsible rhetoric?